![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
the new, new, imacs.
- Thread starter AndreRio
- Start date
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
What do you mean "too thin"? Is there some reason why the edges need to be thick?
Zinn
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,444
too thin for what exactly?
You sound fat.
i think what he means is problem might not be with thiness but more like durability of those corners, and aluminum shell used might be thinner, sorry i haven't seen them but i assume what he means. although i also like older iMacs as their thickness is same for whole body. i new iMac shapes are just awaful and hope they don't brake/damage easily if fell on side or get hit by feather.
UnknownSouljer
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2001
- Messages
- 9,041
I'm sure that any ideas that because the iMac's are thin, they are therefore less durable will be unfounded.
The overall thickness of the machine has nothing to do with the thickness of the aluminum. Additionally the system is simply build like a laptop attached to a 27" screen. Apple has no design deficiency when it comes to laptops.
Finally... who drops their iMac?... it kind of just stays on a desk. If you're worried about damaging an iMac, are you also worried about damaging a monitor because it's thin?
The overall thickness of the machine has nothing to do with the thickness of the aluminum. Additionally the system is simply build like a laptop attached to a 27" screen. Apple has no design deficiency when it comes to laptops.
Finally... who drops their iMac?... it kind of just stays on a desk. If you're worried about damaging an iMac, are you also worried about damaging a monitor because it's thin?
collegeboy69us
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,255
I can't wait for another year to go by and we will see boobs starting threads with titles like "do you think the new new new new new new apple product just released is cool?"
Seriously -- if I go into a dealership and some douche tries to sell me "the new corvette" that doesn't tell me shit. It could be a new 2013, 2012, or even a "new" 2010 model that's still sitting around. You would figure this important reference point of a product number would be important to apple since they like to mothball products after only 7 months on the shelf.
Seriously -- if I go into a dealership and some douche tries to sell me "the new corvette" that doesn't tell me shit. It could be a new 2013, 2012, or even a "new" 2010 model that's still sitting around. You would figure this important reference point of a product number would be important to apple since they like to mothball products after only 7 months on the shelf.
I've actually heard of a lot of cheep desks collapsing under the weight of a PC (college students who buy a "walmart special" mainly, but some decent-quality desks that just get overloaded) while I've not personally had this problem, I have had cheep folding tables collapse when too much weight was put on them, so durability is somewhat of an issue.
Also, for monitors, some people mount them on walls or armatures where if the armature breaks the monitor takes a less-than-soft impact onto a desk or even the floor...
Not sure if these problems pertain to the newest iMacs, but it is a risk for any computer/monitor/etc
harsaphes
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 5,330
Its actually not that thin. There is a big "bubble" on the back that houses everything. Ugly.
Yeah, I kind of find the new design ugly from a profile view.
There is a cool optical illusion associated with the new imac design. From most viewing angles (anything within the curvature of the back hump), the new imac would look impossibly thin. This is because the back hump would not be the the line of sight.
This picture from apple's site prefectly illustrates this illusion from the max angle (which apple seems to exploit as much as possible). Viewing further from the side will break the illusion as the back hump will become visible.
http://images.apple.com/imac/images/performance.jpg
http://www.apple.com/imac/design/
Here from a profile view you can see the new imac doesn't save any space since the overall depth of the machine is basically the same as the previous imac.
new imac: http://images.apple.com/imac/design/images/evolution_today.jpg
old imac: http://images.apple.com/imac/design/images/evolution_2009.jpg
I like how the only profile picture of the new imac is tiny.
Anyways, still think its a stupid design as the new imac doesn't really shrink the occupying space compare to the old imac (i.e the overall depth, height, width of the new imac is the same as the old imca). This new design is purely for aesthetics at a cost of some functionality/expandability.
swatbat
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2001
- Messages
- 13,056
Yea that is my feeling as well. Same can be said for the mini's when they redesigned them. I'd rather have something a little more upgradable. Guess we will see when someone gets their hands on this new one to see how upgradable it is. Apple seems to be going in a direction where the entire machine is junk if anything goes wrong as nothing is upgradable. The new macbooks are a good example of this. I just have this bad feeling my mid 2012 macbook pro 13 inch is going to be one of the last you can upgrade in any way if you want.
wonderfield
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2011
- Messages
- 7,396
There is a difference between showing and emphasizing it. Looking at all the promotion material on Apple.com - there is no sight of it. The only side profile image we see is on an iMac History and that image is pretty low res.
http://www.apple.com/imac/
Take a gander at this
http://www.apple.com/imac/design/
One side on shot in the gallery would have been acceptable. Not saying they need to emphasize it or show it in every image. However, what they are now showing is not reflective of the product.